The diaphragm is the key to the efficient operation of a diaphragm chlorine cell. Although the development of novel electrode materials has resulted in marked improvements in cell voltage and operating life during the past decade, diaphragm technology has not advanced materially since the invention of the deposited asbestos diaphragm fifty years ago. Additional major increases in cell energy efficiency, which depends both on cell voltage and current efficiency, must await significant diaphragm improvements.
The preparation of commercial chlorine cell diaphragms remains more art than science. Although recipes that yield good results have been developed over the years, improvements have normally been obtained only as the result of tedious, trial-and-error experimentation. One reason is the absence of suitable characterizing parameters. Equation (1) defines what we call here the "MacMullin Number" (N.sub.mac), or resistance ratio. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time that this parameter has been used for designing porous cell separators.
Several authors have discussed the theoretical aspects of diaphragm structure and characterization. See, e.g., D. L. Caldwell, "Production of Chlorine", in COMPREHENSIVE TREATISE OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY, Vol, 2, Plenum Press, 1981, pp. 108-166; and F. Hine, "Diaphragm Engineering in Sodium Chloride Electrolysis", in SODA TO ENSO, June, 1980, pp. 219-233. Theoretical models have also appeared in the literature; e.g., W. H. Koh, "Model Optimization of Diaphragm Performance in Industrial Chlor-Alkali Cells", A.I.Ch.E. SYMP. SERIES 77, No. 204 (1981), pp. 213-217. None of these authors, however, either teach or imply the discovery that a direct relationship exists between the cell operating variables and the N.sub.mac t value (described hereinafter) yielding the lowest specific energy consumption per cell; and, further, that N.sub.mac t values are readily determined experimentally.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,250,002 claims a cell separator as defined by a complex algebraic expression relating current efficiency to pore size distribution. Not only is this expression difficult to apply in practice, but the authors apparently fail to realize that minimum energy consumption requires the simultaneous consideration of both current efficiency and separator voltage drop. Since these factors tend to work counter to one another, a distinct optimum separator configuration will exist. This realization is at the heart of the present invention, and was not anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 4,250,002.